### Exorbitant compounded interest on nominal group housing society dues held unsustainable and constitutes member harassment.

The Petitioner’s father, Mr. Kartara Ram, was a founding member of the Nav Jagriti CGHS (Society).

Following his death in 1998, his wife and subsequently his daughter (Smt. Urmila) faced prolonged litigation (since 2007) to secure membership substitution, which was repeatedly obstructed by the Society despite High Court orders.

Although the Petitioner had paid significant sums, including ₹5,01,028 in 2018 and ₹68,000 in 2019, the Society raised a fresh demand of ₹31,82,628 in 2026, claiming 100x compounded interest on a minor alleged shortfall of ₹33,000 from 2019.

Meanwhile, Flat No. 10 (originally sought) was allotted to another member, but Flat No. 13 became vacant after the previous occupant, Mr. Vijay Singh, lost his claim up to the Supreme Court.

Whether the Petitioner is liable to pay the compounded interest of ₹31,82,628 demanded by the Society on an underlying principal of ₹33,000.

Which specific flat should be allotted to the Petitioner to conclude the decades-long dispute.

The Court applied the principles of the Delhi Cooperative Societies Rules (regarding interest on outstandings).

The Court also applied the inherent power of the High Court under Article 226 to prevent harassment and ensure the execution of previous judicial directions.

It relied on the doctrine of reasonableness in commercial/cooperative demands, asserting that interest cannot be exorbitant or used as a tool for harassment.

The Court also noted the finality of litigation regarding Flat No. 13 under the principle of res judicata or finality of judgment following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the previous occupant's SLP.

The Court observed that the Society’s demand for over ₹31 lakhs was "completely untenable" and a clear instance of harassment.

Since the Petitioner had already cleared all major demands by 2018 and expressed a willingness to pay the ₹33,000 "shortfall" identified in 2019, the Society's attempt to levy 100 times that amount as interest was deemed "absolutely unreasonable".

The Court found that Flat No. 13 was legally vacant since Mr. Vijay Singh’s rights were extinguished by the Supreme Court’s order in 2019.

Consequently, there was no legal impediment to allotting this vacant flat to the Petitioner, who has been a recorded owner/member through succession since 2025.

The Court directed the Society to hand over physical possession of Flat No. 13 to the Petitioner by March 15, 2026, by breaking open the locks if necessary.

Failure to comply will attract a penalty of ₹2,00,000 as costs and render the President of the Society personally liable for contempt.

The writ petition was disposed of with all notices to secondary parties discharged.